Jeff Adair: Silly season for Sotomayor

Saturday

May 30, 2009 at 12:01 AMMay 30, 2009 at 9:59 PM

The craziest comment I've heard or read -- and boy there have been plenty -- in response to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court came from a man who objected to her identification as a Latina.

Jeff Adair

The craziest comment I've heard or read -- and boy there have been plenty -- in response to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court came from a man who objected to her identification as a Latina.

It was a talk radio caller, to a sort of rational host. Surprise. Surprise.

Latina is defined as a woman of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, a Spanish-speaking territory of the United States. She fits the bill, right?

Wrong. According to this guy, who identified himself as Italian, Latin was the original language of Rome -- that's correct -- and thus, if anyone ought to use the word to describe their heritage, it should be his, not Sotomayor's.

Besides, he added, we're all Americans. My ancestors came here with nothing. They worked hard. (Get the violin out.) They didn't ask for handouts, unlike ... . We need to stop dividing by race. (Yeah, OK, buddy.)

It's silly season folks. Nitpicking and politics go hand in hand. The lunatics are running the asylum. Their heads are about to explode.

No matter whom Obama nominated to the high court, some folks were going to criticize the person's thin resume, call him or her an activist judge, and declare him or her the worst pick ever.

Oh, don't forget, one must also call Sotomayor that dirty word: Liberal.

She's "a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, big government liberal on steroids!" said a press release titled "Obama picks most liberal Supreme Court justice nominee in history." It was one of many sent to my e-mail Tuesday, including several that arrived before the nomination was official.

Any woman, African-American, or Latino nominee is bound to be called an affirmative action pick. It doesn't matter what law school the person attended, judicial experience, or other accomplishments. Unless the person is a traditional nominee (middle-age white male), they're suspect.

To be fair, silly talk has come from Democrats in the past whenever a Republican president selects a nominee.

Here's the deal: Put the guns down. Get a cool drink and relax. Let Congress give Sotomayor a fair hearing. Members can ask her any question they like. They can make up their minds after the job interview is over.

Congress can ask about the 32 words in a 3,928 word speech she made in 2001 at UCal-Berkley when she said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

There's nothing wrong with racial pride. Read the speech, that's what it was about: a judge proud to be a Latina, proud to be a woman, proud to be in a position, living in the 21st century, breaking down barriers.

Congress can ask her why as part of a three-judge panel she rejected an appeal by a white New Haven firefighter who felt discriminated against because the city threw out the test results for promotions to captain and lieutenant when all but one of the eligible candidates for promotion proved to be white.

And please, stop the tired argument that she's a racist, or in the New Haven case she supported reverse racism. There's no such thing. Racism is racism no matter who the person is committing the action. This racist accusation is an overused charge, it's getting old. It's made mainly by folks who are too lazy to come up with solid reasons they object to a person or cause, or are afraid to admit, "Hey, I just don't like her."

Jeff Adair is a MetroWest Daily News editor and reporter. He can be reached at jadair@cnc.com.